This week PFHR also happens to be promoting their #DefendDoctors“Die-In” in New York City, which is said to be “in defense of doctors in Syria” who are allegedly being brutalised by Washington and London’s target for regime change. According to their website:

“More than 670 medical professionals have been killed in the Syrian crisis. Over 95% of these deaths are by Syrian government forces.”

“The whole world has to be just as angry as they were with what happened in Afghanistan. Their anger must not just be directed at Bashar, who has been inhuman with us, but also at the Russians, who are just as bad, but more accurate in their targeting.”

For some reason, The Guardian does not provide us with any images or video clips of the carnage that they claim has occurred at these hospitals, except a shaky video ‘purporting to show a Russian airstrike’ from ‘@Johnyrocket69‘ (obviously a highly reliable source) that shows an explosion in an open square.

Where is the continuity? Did we not just hear that the Russians were ‘more accurate in their targeting’?

They also drag up the tried-and-tested, or in this case tried-and-failed, subject of ‘barrel bombs’ but now with a chemical twist. The Guardian says with absolute certainty that ‘Syrian regime helicopters dropped barrel bombs filled with chlorine’, but offer no citation as to what happened and when. It then goes on to seemingly contradict itself by saying that this alleged chlorine barrel bomb attack by the Syrian government has subsequently “prompted further claims that Damascus had continued to use banned chemicals’.

By marrying the ‘Barrel Bomb’ and ‘chlorine chemical bomb’ narratives together, the west is once again attempting to position the Syrian Government as a purveyor of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and somehow gaining a moral edge in the hearts and minds department. Even the UN admitted in its chemical weapons report earlier this year that they have no actual evidence of the west’s alleged ‘Assad Chlorine Barrel Bombs’:

“While the report did not attribute responsibility for the chlorine attacks, it cited 32 witnesses who saw or heard the sound of helicopters as bombs struck and that 29 smelled chlorine…”

Good enough for the Guardian?

The record shows that the western media have been jumping to convenient conclusions on WMD’s many times already. Putting the whole Iraq debacle aside, we can show many other examples of policy-led journalism in the west. In Ghouta in 2013, it was “Sarin Attack” which the US and UK immediately blamed on the Syrian government as a pretext for war, which has since been exposed, beyond a doubt, as a false flag event carried out by western-backed opposition militants in Syria.

What The Guardian’s latest “report” represents is an utter journalistic failure. It fails to question anything or offer alternative explanations for what it presents so confidently as evidence (what should be a basic academic trait), and instead relies on dubious eyewitness claims that hold very little water at all.

In doing so, The Guardian acts as a functionary for western foreign policy in Syria – further advancing a dangerous position that advocates an escalation of tensions with a very capable nuclear power in Russia, a move which only damages the lofty reputation of the entire news outlet.